How Environmentalists Caused The BP Oil Spill

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

And after reading the ongoing discussion, no, we don't need oil to create energy. There is hydroelectric power, whic I see has alreayd been discussed. There is also wind power, wave power, tidal power, geothermal power, waste to energy incinerators, solar power, and more. 50% of the USAs power consumption is generated through renewable resources. In BC, the prvince I live in, over 90% of our energy is produced through renewable resources. We don't need to be dependent on fossil fuels. Some countries in the world get 100% of their power through renewable resources.

of course the reason why they aren't more widely used yet is because they do not have many charging stations. Recently, however, the city in which I live has made it manadtory to include these charging stations in at least 30% of their parking stalls. This is where the future is heading. Peoples reluctance to change is going to determine what country has a leg up over another in the future.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

And after reading the ongoing discussion, no, we don't need oil to create energy. There is hydroelectric power, whic I see has alreayd been discussed. There is also wind power, wave power, tidal power, geothermal power, waste to energy incinerators, solar power, and more. 50% of the USAs power consumption is generated through renewable resources. In BC, the prvince I live in, over 90% of our energy is produced through renewable resources. We don't need to be dependent on fossil fuels. Some countries in the world get 100% of their power through renewable resources.

BumFluff122

of course the reason why they aren't more widely used yet is because they do not have many charging stations. Recently, however, the city in which I live has made it manadtory to include these charging stations in at least 30% of their parking stalls. This is where the future is heading. Peoples reluctance to change is going to determine what country has a leg up over another in the future.

No. As soon as you see it become more efficient, cheaper, and more practical than oil, THAT'S when your going to see REAL change. That's how things work.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Absolutely not. Offshore drilling shouldn't be allowed to begin with. OR nuclear power. They all come with extreme risks. And no matter what anyone tells you they aren't safe.EMOEVOLUTION

So what we supposed to do? lol back to the stone age with us!???

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

And after reading the ongoing discussion, no, we don't need oil to create energy. There is hydroelectric power, whic I see has alreayd been discussed. There is also wind power, wave power, tidal power, geothermal power, waste to energy incinerators, solar power, and more. 50% of the USAs power consumption is generated through renewable resources. In BC, the prvince I live in, over 90% of our energy is produced through renewable resources. We don't need to be dependent on fossil fuels. Some countries in the world get 100% of their power through renewable resources.

SpartanMSU

Hydroelectric power has a harmful effect on the environment. It's not a good choice of your want to preserve the Earth. Wind power, wave power, tidal power, and geothermal power only work in areas where that kind of energy is available. I'm sorry, you're not going to get wave or geothermal power in Kansas...

Solar power as it is isn't enough. Oil is still the best until newer technology comes out.

As for Kansas:

You have the bowersock dam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kansas_River_Lawrence.jpg

you also have nuclear power, which is a clean energy, in the Wolf Creek plant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Creek_Generating_Station

Numerous wind farms

http://www2.ljworld.com/photos/galleries/2009/jun/19/wind-farms-kansas/

and if you search for 'Kansas Geothermal' on google you'll come up with many different organizations that offer residential geothermal power production resources. (Note that from your statement I question if you know what geothermal energy actually is. It consists of a well dug down to a certain depth qwhere it is warm enough to provide energy from steaming water that is put into the well. It has nothing to do with the ocean.)

Oh God, I would never switch to electric if I had to drive that car. It's almost as ugly as the Prius. If you want to tout electric cars, do yourself a favor. Stick with something like the Tesla Roadster.

coolbeans90

And after reading the ongoing discussion, no, we don't need oil to create energy. There is hydroelectric power, whic I see has alreayd been discussed. There is also wind power, wave power, tidal power, geothermal power, waste to energy incinerators, solar power, and more. 50% of the USAs power consumption is generated through renewable resources. In BC, the prvince I live in, over 90% of our energy is produced through renewable resources. We don't need to be dependent on fossil fuels. Some countries in the world get 100% of their power through renewable resources.

BumFluff122

BC is able to do that well because they're able to get so much hydroelectric power. Like I said, that's good when you can get it, but it's not a solution in general because not every location has enough places to dam. All of the other sources you list have issues with them as well, many of them I've discussed in this very thread.

I'm personally very big on nuclear power, myself - it is safe (yes, it really is), it is reliable, it does not depend on weather conditions, it produces very little waste and the waste that it does produce can be easily contained, and while it is technically not renewable the sun will likely burn out before we run out of nuclear fuel.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Oh God, I would never switch to electric if I had to drive that car. It's almost as ugly as the Prius. If you want to tout electric cars, do yourself a favor. Stick with something like the Tesla Roadster.

BumFluff122

Fair enough. Personally, I would never drive one.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"] How many of those countries get 100% of their vehicular energy through renewable resources?mattbbpl

of course the reason why they aren't more widely used yet is because they do not have many charging stations. Recently, however, the city in which I live has made it manadtory to include these charging stations in at least 30% of their parking stalls. This is where the future is heading. Peoples reluctance to change is going to determine what country has a leg up over another in the future.

No. As soon as you see it become more efficient, cheaper, and more practical than oil, THAT'S when your going to see REAL change. That's how things work.

SpartanMSU

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

No. As soon as you see it become more efficient, cheaper, and more practical than oil, THAT'S when your going to see REAL change. That's how things work.

BumFluff122

Cost of the vehicles themselves is not being held constant...

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

And after reading the ongoing discussion, no, we don't need oil to create energy. There is hydroelectric power, whic I see has alreayd been discussed. There is also wind power, wave power, tidal power, geothermal power, waste to energy incinerators, solar power, and more. 50% of the USAs power consumption is generated through renewable resources. In BC, the prvince I live in, over 90% of our energy is produced through renewable resources. We don't need to be dependent on fossil fuels. Some countries in the world get 100% of their power through renewable resources.

GabuEx

BC is able to do that well because they're able to get so much hydroelectric power. Like I said, that's good when you can get it, but it's not a solution in general because not every location has enough places to dam. All of the other sources you list have issues with them as well, many of them I've discussed in this very thread.

I'm personally very big on nuclear power, myself - it is safe (yes, it really is), it is reliable, it does not depend on weather conditions, it produces very little waste and the waste that it does produce can be easily contained, and while it is technically not renewable the sun will likely burn out before we run out of nuclear fuel.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

No. As soon as you see it become more efficient, cheaper, and more practical than oil, THAT'S when your going to see REAL change. That's how things work.

coolbeans90

Cost of the vehicles themselves is not being held constant...

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Explain to me how not buying gas and not buying oil would be cheaper than buying gas and buying oil.

BumFluff122

Cost of the vehicles themselves is not being held constant...

Tax breaks are an artificial measure of cost reduction for energy. It is still a cost to be borne by society, and needs to be taken into consideration with regards to the cost of an infrastructural overhaul.

Secondly, I am suspicious that the automobile manufacturing companies may in fact be producing these vehicles at a loss. This would explain to a fair degree why they aren't appearing in massive droves. It probably will be a while until the vehicles become marketably cheaper.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Explain to me how not buying gas and not buying oil would be cheaper than buying gas and buying oil.

BumFluff122

Cost of the vehicles themselves is not being held constant...

That tax break has yet to pass the Senate and it barely passed the house.............. don't count your chickens ;)

Tax breaks are an artificial measure of cost reduction for energy. It is still a cost to be borne by society, and needs to be taken into consideration with regards to the cost of an infrastructural overhaul.

Secondly, I am suspicious that the automobile manufacturing companies may in fact be producing these vehicles at a loss. This would explain to a fair degree why they aren't appearing in massive droves. It probably will be a while until the vehicles become marketably cheaper.

coolbeans90

Jeez, Sorry guys i knew i shouldn't of been messing with all those shiny buttons on the rig but i never knew this would happen...

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Tax breaks are an artificial measure of cost reduction for energy. It is still a cost to be borne by society, and needs to be taken into consideration with regards to the cost of an infrastructural overhaul.

Secondly, I am suspicious that the automobile manufacturing companies may in fact be producing these vehicles at a loss. This would explain to a fair degree why they aren't appearing in massive droves. It probably will be a while until the vehicles become marketably cheaper.

BumFluff122

That doesn't address to any degree the concerns I posted. If one sells a car well below it's manufacturing price so it sells, that does not mean that it is a viable option to switch to electric vehicles. Just because limited amounts of artificially price reduced vehicles are being sold by all companies does not mean that the market can currently afford to switch to what is actually a more expensive market. It likely will be limited for quite some time. The reason BP had to stop the EV1 in the 90s was because it was too expensive, and were taking massive losses on the cars. Sure, electric cars have come some way since, but there is still some time to pass until on a price to price level that the vehicles will cost a relatively equal amount to purchase.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Tax breaks are an artificial measure of cost reduction for energy. It is still a cost to be borne by society, and needs to be taken into consideration with regards to the cost of an infrastructural overhaul.

Secondly, I am suspicious that the automobile manufacturing companies may in fact be producing these vehicles at a loss. This would explain to a fair degree why they aren't appearing in massive droves. It probably will be a while until the vehicles become marketably cheaper.

BumFluff122

NUUUBBBEEE!

There is no way of getting around there, is there?

You try to help mother nature and that comes around to hurt her anyway!

I picked burn him alive...with all that excess oil it should be easy..

[spoiler] Who are we burning O_O?... [/spoiler]

That doesn't address to any degree the concerns I posted. If one sells a car well below it's manufacturing price so it sells, that does not mean that it is a viable option to switch to electric vehicles. Just because limited amounts of artificially price reduced vehicles are being sold by all companies does not mean that the market can currently afford to switch to what is actually a more expensive market. It likely will be limited for quite some time. The reason BP had to stop the EV1 in the 90s was because it was too expensive, and were taking massive losses on the cars. Sure, electric cars have come some way since, but there is still some time to pass until on a price to price level that the vehicles will cost a relatively equal amount to purchase.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

I like the idea behind the Chevrolet Volt. It's the middle ground - something the general population may be willing to drive while the country's infrastructure changes. You can charge it at any residential electrical outlet and it looks a little more slick than the Leaf:

limpbizkit818

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

And after reading the ongoing discussion, no, we don't need oil to create energy. There is hydroelectric power, whic I see has alreayd been discussed. There is also wind power, wave power, tidal power, geothermal power, waste to energy incinerators, solar power, and more. 50% of the USAs power consumption is generated through renewable resources. In BC, the prvince I live in, over 90% of our energy is produced through renewable resources. We don't need to be dependent on fossil fuels. Some countries in the world get 100% of their power through renewable resources.

BumFluff122

Hydroelectric power has a harmful effect on the environment. It's not a good choice of your want to preserve the Earth. Wind power, wave power, tidal power, and geothermal power only work in areas where that kind of energy is available. I'm sorry, you're not going to get wave or geothermal power in Kansas...

Solar power as it is isn't enough. Oil is still the best until newer technology comes out.

As for Kansas:

You have the bowersock dam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kansas_River_Lawrence.jpg

you also have nuclear power, which is a clean energy, in the Wolf Creek plant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Creek_Generating_Station

Numerous wind farms

http://www2.ljworld.com/photos/galleries/2009/jun/19/wind-farms-kansas/

and if you search for 'Kansas Geothermal' on google you'll come up with many different organizations that offer residential geothermal power production resources. (Note that from your statement I question if you know what geothermal energy actually is. It consists of a well dug down to a certain depth qwhere it is warm enough to provide energy from steaming water that is put into the well. It has nothing to do with the ocean.)

I'm not talking about being "clean". I'm talking about they're effects on the surrounding areas environment and plants/animals. Unless my Environmental Sciences professor was lying to us...

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Tax breaks are an artificial measure of cost reduction for energy. It is still a cost to be borne by society, and needs to be taken into consideration with regards to the cost of an infrastructural overhaul.

Secondly, I am suspicious that the automobile manufacturing companies may in fact be producing these vehicles at a loss. This would explain to a fair degree why they aren't appearing in massive droves. It probably will be a while until the vehicles become marketably cheaper.

BumFluff122

In order for me as well as many others to make the switch to electric cars, they're going to have to make them just as good as gas-powered cars. Sorry, I'm not going to give my my 350z for that boring piece of crap electric car. And I'm sure they'll eventually come out with them, it just takes time.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Tax breaks are an artificial measure of cost reduction for energy. It is still a cost to be borne by society, and needs to be taken into consideration with regards to the cost of an infrastructural overhaul.

Secondly, I am suspicious that the automobile manufacturing companies may in fact be producing these vehicles at a loss. This would explain to a fair degree why they aren't appearing in massive droves. It probably will be a while until the vehicles become marketably cheaper.

limpbizkit818

Didn't GM scrap that recently?

Absolutely not. Offshore drilling shouldn't be allowed to begin with. OR nuclear power. They all come with extreme risks. And no matter what anyone tells you they aren't safe.EMOEVOLUTION

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Absolutely not. Offshore drilling shouldn't be allowed to begin with. OR nuclear power. They all come with extreme risks. And no matter what anyone tells you they aren't safe.Ringx55

I really hate it when people say this.

"Nuclear energy is actually quite safe. Its just the radioactive byproduct thats dangerous."

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

That doesn't address to any degree the concerns I posted. If one sells a car well below it's manufacturing price so it sells, that does not mean that it is a viable option to switch to electric vehicles. Just because limited amounts of artificially price reduced vehicles are being sold by all companies does not mean that the market can currently afford to switch to what is actually a more expensive market. It likely will be limited for quite some time. The reason BP had to stop the EV1 in the 90s was because it was too expensive, and were taking massive losses on the cars. Sure, electric cars have come some way since, but there is still some time to pass until on a price to price level that the vehicles will cost a relatively equal amount to purchase.

BumFluff122

Honestly, I do not. The batteries for standalone electric cars are costly though. From what I gather, a bit of R & D have been devoted to develop technologies for these cars...

[QUOTE="Ringx55"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Absolutely not. Offshore drilling shouldn't be allowed to begin with. OR nuclear power. They all come with extreme risks. And no matter what anyone tells you they aren't safe.Superbored

I really hate it when people say this.

"Nuclear energy is actually quite safe. Its just the radioactive byproduct thats dangerous."

I'm not talking about being "clean". I'm talking about they're effects on the surrounding areas environment and plants/animals. Unless my Environmental Sciences professor was lying to us...

SpartanMSU

In order for me as well as many others to make the switch to electric cars, they're going to have to make them just as good as gas-powered cars. Sorry, I'm not going to give my my 350z for that boring piece of crap electric car. And I'm sure they'll eventually come out with them, it just takes time.

SpartanMSU

[QUOTE="Ringx55"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Absolutely not. Offshore drilling shouldn't be allowed to begin with. OR nuclear power. They all come with extreme risks. And no matter what anyone tells you they aren't safe.Superbored

I really hate it when people say this.

"Nuclear energy is actually quite safe. Its just the radioactive byproduct thats dangerous."

Radioactive waste can be effectively contained and transported, as it has been for the whole history of nuclear power production in America. The statement that nuclear energy is safe is true. As I said earlier in this thread, there has been not one nuclear-related death at a commercial nuclear power plant in America... ever. That is not even hyperbole to make a point. That is the truth.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

In order for me as well as many others to make the switch to electric cars, they're going to have to make them just as good as gas-powered cars. Sorry, I'm not going to give my my 350z for that boring piece of crap electric car. And I'm sure they'll eventually come out with them, it just takes time.

BumFluff122

It's not so much a statement of "should" but rather "will". If a product sucks, people won't buy it.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

That doesn't address to any degree the concerns I posted. If one sells a car well below it's manufacturing price so it sells, that does not mean that it is a viable option to switch to electric vehicles. Just because limited amounts of artificially price reduced vehicles are being sold by all companies does not mean that the market can currently afford to switch to what is actually a more expensive market. It likely will be limited for quite some time. The reason BP had to stop the EV1 in the 90s was because it was too expensive, and were taking massive losses on the cars. Sure, electric cars have come some way since, but there is still some time to pass until on a price to price level that the vehicles will cost a relatively equal amount to purchase.

coolbeans90

Honestly, I do not. The batteries for standalone electric cars are costly though. From what I gather, a bit of R & D have been devoted to develop technologies for these cars...

It's not so much a statement of "should" but rather "will". If a product sucks, people won't buy it.

GabuEx

I'm also sure that more of these types of cars will come out with much the same looks as this.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

In order for me as well as many others to make the switch to electric cars, they're going to have to make them just as good as gas-powered cars. Sorry, I'm not going to give my my 350z for that boring piece of crap electric car. And I'm sure they'll eventually come out with them, it just takes time.

BumFluff122

It looks like crap, is small, and is slower than molasses. Sorry, people aren't going to buy it unless it can directly compete with gas-powered cars. And I'm sure they eventually will. You just have to wait until they can come out with the technology.

that is some flawed logic you have there

Colin1192

[QUOTE="Colin1192"]

that is some flawed logic you have there

Jaguar_Shade

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]I'm curious, do you know how much the Leaf costs to produce?

BumFluff122

Honestly, I do not. The batteries for standalone electric cars are costly though. From what I gather, a bit of R & D have been devoted to develop technologies for these cars...

Because historically vehicles like this are sold at a loss. I know GM is selling the volt at a rather nasty loss, and I'll supply a link when I can. And that vehicle isn't even electric. They are still an infrastructural cost to switch. Just because the cost is hidden, doesn't by any means mean that it isn't a burden. If companies were able to sell vehicles to fly off the the lots and make profits doing so, they sure as hell will. Thing is, time is a relevant factor not yet overcome.

Before you go all ninja flaming on me, let me explain myself. Environmentalists made a law saying that you cannot drill in shallow waters. (Close to the shore) so BP had to drill out deep right? If they were drilling near the shore it probably would not have happened because of how easier it is. And would be easier to clean.

dunl12496

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

In order for me as well as many others to make the switch to electric cars, they're going to have to make them just as good as gas-powered cars. Sorry, I'm not going to give my my 350z for that boring piece of crap electric car. And I'm sure they'll eventually come out with them, it just takes time.

SpartanMSU

It looks like crap, is small, and is slower than molasses. Sorry, people aren't going to buy it unless it can directly compete with gas-powered cars. And I'm sure they eventually will. You just have to wait until they can come out with the technology.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

In order for me as well as many others to make the switch to electric cars, they're going to have to make them just as good as gas-powered cars. Sorry, I'm not going to give my my 350z for that boring piece of crap electric car. And I'm sure they'll eventually come out with them, it just takes time.

SpartanMSU

It looks like crap, is small, and is slower than molasses. Sorry, people aren't going to buy it unless it can directly compete with gas-powered cars. And I'm sure they eventually will. You just have to wait until they can come out with the technology.

[QUOTE="Colin1192"]

that is some flawed logic you have there

Jaguar_Shade

Or because the technology isn't ready to be mass marketed yet...Do some research on the subject buddy.

Before you go all ninja flaming on me, let me explain myself. Environmentalists made a law saying that you cannot drill in shallow waters. (Close to the shore) so BP had to drill out deep right? If they were drilling near the shore it probably would not have happened because of how easier it is. And would be easier to clean.

dunl12496

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]It is your personal opinion on not liking the car. Is this really the best argument you can come up with on why gas powered cars should be placed above fully electric or even hybrid cars? Your opinion on it being pretty or not?

BumFluff122

It looks like crap, is small, and is slower than molasses. Sorry, people aren't going to buy it unless it can directly compete with gas-powered cars. And I'm sure they eventually will. You just have to wait until they can come out with the technology.

A top speed of 90 mph isn't fast.:lol: You must not know much about cars buddy...